Nick Whitelegg wrote on 18/11/2010 11:20:
I'd go further than stupid, denotation is the wrong word to use, for two reasons: the intent is to have some more detailed specification of the tree, as I understand it, denotation is a technical term with far more to do with semantics of the description rather than the objects being described.What a stupid thing to do (and "denotation" is a stupid word to use too).Thanks, that gave me a good laugh. I think we can add denotation=cluster to the tagging hall of shame alongside smoothness=very_horrible. Any others?Not sure, but an anagram of "denotation" would be an appropriate thing to do to this bot and others like it. Maybe we should set up some sort of equivalent of "robots.txt" in which users can tell bots to stop molesting their data. ;-)Nick Mainly though, it is an academic term that would be entirely off-putting to the general user even if it were properly used. I would have said plain English was the golden rule for any entry in the system whether it is a tag or a value. The use of terms that are not in common usage may appear to be helpful in making it accurate, but in fact it is just likely to mean that people mis-understand the purpose of a tag anyway. OSM generally does use ordinary words for ordinary things, and in this case it is entirely unclear what differentiation is being described - cluster is about saying that this point on a map represents a number of trees, which is not a denotation. To go down the root(!) of providing detail to tree entries, it is clear that there are many different issues. In my interests, TPO status (individual;group;area not TPO if tag not present) would be a valuable piece of information, as would a number of different features relevant to tree surveying, so a general "thingy" tag disguised by a technical term is particularly unhelpful. Spenny |
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
